New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 6 October 2014
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-959-51046
MUSIC.MUSIC LLC

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result

Did Not Prevail

Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

3 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned00123Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
0/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), as the community defined in the application does not demonstratesufficient delineation, organization, or pre-existence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points
under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.
The community is defined in the application as follows:
Page 1

.MUSIC LLC was created with the express intent and purpose of serving a community establishedand known worldwide, which despite location, culture or genre, is identified and united by a single
word: “music”…
The Global Music Community (GMC) is comprised of an international range of associations andorganizations and the millions of individuals these organizations represent, all of whom are involvedin the creation, development, publishing, recording, advocacy, promotion, distribution, education,
preservation and or nurturing of the art of music...
The differentiation between general Internet users and members of the music community are clearlydelineated by two well defined-criteria. They are:
1. Active participation in the creation and development of music, its advocacy and promotion, its
professional support, the protection and preservation of the music community’s creative rights,
as well as the nurturing of the art through music education.
2. Current registration and verifiable membership in a global music community organization thatwas organized and in existence prior to 2007 (as per ICANN guidelines) who are active
participants in the support and representation of the creation and development of music, its
advocacy and promotion, its professional support, the protection and preservation of the music
community’s creative rights, as well as the nurturing of the art through music education.
The application’s defined community delineates a clear and straightforward membership, due to therequirement for members to have current and verifiable registration in a “global music community
organization” (i.e. membership organization). The membership mechanism is therefore clear, and the groupsof possible members must be active in creating, supporting, representing, protecting and/or nurturing music.
This is a transparent and verifiable membership structure that adequately meets the AGB’s first criterion for
Delineation.
However, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.” Thecommunity as defined in the application does not demonstrate an awareness and recognition among its
members. The application materials and further research provide no substantive evidence of what the AGB
calls “cohesion” – that is, that the various members of the community as defined by the application are“united or form a whole” (Oxford Dictionaries).
For example, the Guitar Foundation of America (GFA) falls within one of the articulated segments of theapplication’s proposed community.1 Based on the Panel’s research, however, the GFA does not show anawareness or recognition of the several other segments of the applicant’s proposed community, whether by
way of interaction or an explicit statement of cohesion.2 The same lack of awareness, recognition, and/or
cohesion is evident across a range of similar music-related organizations, which have neither mentioned theirperception of cohesion with other disparate groups nor demonstrated it through records of their activities orobjectives. While the Panel acknowledges that many of the members in the proposed community share aninterest in music, the AGB specifies that a “commonality of interest” is not sufficient to demonstrate therequisite awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
Another example relates to members of the musician category, in particular amateur musicians, who do not,in most cases3, demonstrate the requisite recognition and awareness of a community with other member

1 The group falls firmly within the membership structures defined by the applicant and has submitted a letter of support.
2 The Panel acknowledges that an exhaustive review of all proposed community member organizations is not possible

and has used the GFA as a representative example of the review carried out to determine awareness and recognition of
the proposed community.
3 While an exhaustive review of such organizations is impossible, the Panel’s representative survey included member
organizations catering exclusively to amateur musicians, defined in some cases as individuals with an interest in music
Page 2categories. The application does not refer to professional or amateur musicians specifically, but rather refers
to “music creators”, which would include both types of musicians. The Panel reviewed the websites andother publicly available information for a number of organizations that specifically cater to amateur
musicians4. These member organizations do not (a) demonstrate cohesion with other organizations foramateur musicians, nor do they (b) demonstrate cohesion with music industry professionals. The Panel’s
review found that:a.

The representative activities and stated objectives of amateur organizations do not typicallyindicate any demonstrable association or cohesion with organizations and their members.5 This
reflects the broad array of musical interests to which such organizations cater, as well as the wide
geographic dispersion of these organizations.
b. There is insufficient evidence of awareness and recognition between amateur musicians andmusic industry professionals,6 such as promoters, distributors, and attorneys. Many of theamateur musicians’ organizations are explicitly restricted to members who have no business ties
to the music industry.7 The representative activities and stated objectives of amateurorganizations do not typically indicate any demonstrable association or cohesion with musicindustry professionals.
With respect to the member categories, particularly those discussed above, the Panel determined that there isinsufficient awareness and recognition of a community among the proposed community members, and thatthey do not therefore cohere as a community as required by the AGB. While the Panel acknowledges thatsome of the individuals in the community as defined by the applicant have a commonality of interest inmusic, and even that some member categories cohere, the defined community as a whole, in all its member
categories, does not meet the AGB’s requirement for community awareness and recognition.
Therefore, the Panel determined that the community as defined in the application satisfies one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation, and thereby does not receive credit for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application is disperse geographically and across a wide array of musicrelated activities, ranging from production to legal advocacy. Based on the Panel’s research, there is no entity
mainly dedicated to the entire community as defined by the applicant, nor does the application include
reference to such an organization in its sample list of member organizations. Research showed that thoseorganizations that do exist represent members of the defined community only in a limited geographic area or
only in certain fields within the community. According to the application:
To date, there are forty-two (42) clearly delineated, organized and pre-existing music community
organizations that have provided individual written statements of support. This unparalleled level ofglobal music community representation is referred to as the Charter Member Organizations of the
Global Music Community (GMC). Collectively they represent over 4 million individual members
within more than 1,000 associations in over 150 countries. Although these Charter Member
Organizations are not the exhaustive list of every possible organizational member of the GMC, they
do represent the largest, most well known, credible, and diverse membership of the GMC.
but who receive no payment for their performances or who have no contract or other formal link to a record label ormanagement company.
4 These organizations clearly meet the proposed community’s eligibility requirements (including a verifiable membership
structure).
5 See, as an example, the Japan Amateur Orchestras and amateur choruses in UK and New York:
http://www.piertownchorus.com/home.html, http://www.lowereastsidesing.vocis.com/, http://www.jao.or.jp/e/
6 For instance, the industry community members classified by NAICS codes 512210 and 711410.
http://www.naics.com/free-code-search/naicsdescription.php?code=512210
7 See e.g. http://www.nycclassical.com/aboutacma1.html and restrictions on professional musicians
Page 3

According to the AGB, "organized" implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity, with documented evidence of community activities.” In the excerpt above, the application refers
to 42 entities that, in and of themselves, are clearly delineated and organized. These organizations, however,represent only segments of the defined community, and the list does not include an organization that
represents the entire proposed community. An “organized” community, according to the AGB, is one that isrepresented by at least one entity that encompasses the entire community as defined by the applicant. There
should, therefore, be at least one entity that encompasses and organizes individuals and organizations in thefields of creation, development, publishing, recording, advocacy, promotion, distribution, education,
preservation and or nurturing of the art of music, and that entity must have documented evidence ofactivities. Based on information provided in the application materials and the Panel’s research, there is noentity that organizes the community defined in the application, in all the breadth of categories explicitly
defined.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed) and must display an awareness andrecognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed to obtain a sought-aftergeneric word as a gTLD string.
The application makes reference to the list of organizations that have supported its application, which it says
are representative of the community as a whole. The organizations listed were active prior to 2007. However,the fact that each organization was active prior to 2007 does not mean that these organizations were active as
a community prior to 2007, as required by the AGB guidelines. That is, since those organizations and theirmembers do not themselves form a cohesive community as defined in the AGB, they cannot be considered
to be a community that was active as such prior to 2007.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not fulfill the requirements forpre-existence.
1-B Extension
0/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application did not meet the criterion for
Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the application
did not fulfill the requirements for size, nor demonstrate the longevity of the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. The community for .MUSIC as definedin the application is large both in terms of geographical reach and number of members. According to theapplicant:
The Global Music Community (GMC) is comprised of an international range of associations andorganizations and the millions of individuals these organizations represent, all of whom are involvedin the creation, development, publishing, recording, advocacy, promotion, distribution, education,
Page 4

preservation and or nurturing of the art of music… To date, there are forty-two (42) clearlydelineated, organized and pre-existing music community organizations that have provided individual
written statements of support. This unparalleled level of global music community representation isreferred to as the Charter Member Organizations of the Global Music Community (GMC).
Collectively they represent over 4 million individual members within more than 1,000 associations inover 150 countries.
However, as previously noted, the community as defined in the application does not show evidence of“cohesion” among its members, as required by the AGB.8 Therefore, it fails the second criterion for Size.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application only satisfies one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. According to section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, the CPE process is conceived to identify qualified
community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue priority to an
application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a get a sought-after generic word as a gTLD
string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a proposed community construed to obtain a soughtafter generic word as a gTLD. Moreover the applicant appears to be attempting to use the gTLD to organize
the various groups noted in the application documentation, as opposed to applying on behalf of an alreadyorganized and cohesive community. As previously stated, the community as defined in the application does
not have awareness and recognition among its members. Failing this kind of “cohesion,” the community
defined by the application does not meet the AGB’s standards for a community. Therefore, as a construed
community, the proposed community cannot meet the AGB's requirements for longevity.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
0/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
0/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The string does not identify or match the name of thecommunity as defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus,
the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify” means that the applied-for string shouldclosely describe the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond thecommunity.
The applied-for string (.MUSIC) does not match or identify the name of the community. The applicant limits
the proposed community to individuals and entities that have a “current registration and verifiable
membership in a global music community organization”. The string MUSIC, however, identifies all
individuals and entities involved in the creation of music, regardless of whether or not they have verifiable
membership in a music-related organization. The application itself does not provide an estimate for the
8As stated previously, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest…There should be: (a) an awareness and recognition of a community among its members…” Failing suchqualities, the AGB’s requirements for community establishment are not met.
Page 5

number of musicians who have registered with one of the proposed community’s organizations (of which it
lists 42 examples), but one of the largest musician’s membership organizations in the US, the American
Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) has about 500,000 members9. The Indianequivalent of ASCAP (also a supporter of the application) has fewer than 3,000 members10. The number ofamateur musicians worldwide is unknown but is estimated to be about 200 million11 – far surpassing theapplication’s estimate of 4 million individuals registered with musical organizations. Therefore, there aremany individual musicians identified by the applied-for string who do not fall within the membership of the
proposed community. This difference between the proposed community and those identified by the string issubstantial and is indicative of the degree to which the applied-for string substantially over-reaches beyond
the community defined by the application.
The Panel determined that the applied-for string does not match or identify the name of the community as
defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community. It therefore
does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Uniqueness as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus.
The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application does not demonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on
Nexus and is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. This is based on the Panel’s determinationthat the applied-for string “.MUSIC” reaches substantially beyond the community as defined in theapplication so does not identify it by AGB standards. Therefore, since the string does not identify thecommunity, it cannot be said to “have no other significant meaning beyond identifying the community” (emphasis
added, AGB). The Panel determined that the applied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill therequirements for Uniqueness.
Criterion #3: Registration Policies
1/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as eligibility is restricted to community members. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by
restricting domain registration to individuals who are “members of or affiliated with at least one Member
Organizations of the Global Music Community.” The Panel determined that the application satisfies thecondition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application does not meet the criterion for Name Selection as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria). The application does not provide evidence that thename selection rules included are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
TLD. The application therefore received a score of 0 points under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The Paneldetermined that the application did not satisfy the condition of consistency with the articulated communitybased purpose of the applied-for string. There was no evidence in the application of restrictions or guidelines
9 http://www.ascap.com/about/
10 http://www.iprs.org/cms/IPRS/AnnualReport/DirectorsReport20112012.aspx
11 http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/06/06/sezion-lets-anyone-collaborate-on-a-song-could-be-the-instagram-for-amateur-musicians/
Page 6

for name selection that arose out of the community-based purpose of the application, nor was it articulated
that the other name selection rules (not related to the community-based purpose) were otherwise sufficientand in accordance with the community-based purpose of the application. In section 20(c) on its communitybased purpose, the applicant states,“Registration policies will safeguard the exclusive nature of the community by requiring potential
registrants to have a bona fide membership with an at least one Organization Member of Global
Music Community, before they can acquire a .music address.”
This, however, is sufficient only to guarantee the CPE Eligibility requirements as in 3-A above. The
application does not refer to its community-based purpose in discussion of name selection rules, despite its
articulation of several community values that could come to bear on name selection.
3-C Content and Use
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application does not meet the criterion for Content and Use as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria). The application does not provide evidence that thecontent and use rules included are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the appliedfor TLD. The application therefore received a score of 0 points under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies for content and use must be
consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. (Comprehensive details
are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Panel determined that the application did
not satisfy the condition of consistency with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
string. There was no evidence in the application of requirements, restrictions or guidelines for content anduse that arose out of the community-based purpose of the application, nor does the application articulate thatthe other content and use rules (not related to the community-based purpose) were otherwise sufficient andin accordance with the community-based purpose of the application. In section 20(c) on its communitybased purpose, the applicant states,“Registration policies will safeguard the exclusive nature of the community by requiring potential
registrants to have a bona fide membership with an at least one Organization Member of Global
Music Community, before they can acquire a .music address.”
This, however, is sufficient only to guarantee the CPE Eligibility requirements as in 3-A above. The
application does not refer to its community-based purpose in discussion of content and use rules, despite its
articulation of several community values that could come to bear on content and use.
3-D Enforcement
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application does not meet the criterion for Enforcement as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The application provides specific
enforcement measures but does not include a coherent and appropriate appeals mechanisms. The application
received a score of 0 points under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a
coherent set. The applicant outlines a comprehensive list of investigation procedures, and circumstances inwhich the registry is entitled to suspend domain names. The application makes reference to an appeals
process that will be overseen by its Policy Advisory Board, but it does not provide a clear description of an
appeals process. The Panel determined that the application satisfies only one of the two conditions to fulfill
the requirements for Enforcement and therefore scores 0 points.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
2/4 Point(s)4-A Support
1/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for Support specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as there was documented support from at least one
group with relevance. The application received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
Page 7

To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means the institution(s)/organization(s) that, through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community. To
receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one group with
relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed.
The Panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized community institution(s)/member
organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community, or documented support
from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s). A recognized community institution
or member organization is one which not only (1) represents the entirety of the community as defined by theapplication (in all its breadth of categories as described in Delineation), but is also (2) recognized by the samecommunity as its representative. No such organization among the applicant’s supporters demonstrates thekind of structure required to be a “recognized” organization, as per AGB guidelines. However, the applicant
possesses documented support from at least one group with relevance and this documentation contained a
description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of support. The Community
Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Opposition specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the application received opposition from one relevant organization of non-negligible size. The application
received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one relevant group of non-negligible size.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that there is opposition to the application from agroup of non-negligible size and from an organization within the communities explicitly addressed by theapplication, making it relevant. The entity has a strong reputation in the music representation and marketing
fields, and a subsidiary company that is involved in distribution and promotion. These activities fall within
the applicant’s proposed membership segments. The entity was founded in 2006, has several full-time
employees, and has an impact in the music community that reaches thousands of people, in addition topartnerships with major international brands. The grounds of the entity’s objection do not fall under any of
those excluded by the AGB (such as claims that are “spurious, unsubstantiated, made for a purpose
incompatible with competition objectives, or filed for the purpose of obstruction”), but rather relate to how
the community is delineated and the rules for name selection. Therefore, the Panel determined that theapplicant satisfied the requirements for Opposition partially.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the AGB or the Registry Agreement. For updated
application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the AGB and the ICANN New
gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page 8